Art Jury Committee Meeting Minutes
RSF Association Office - 8:00 a.m.
September 12, 2006

Return to Art Jury

Previous Art Jury Minutes

PDF Format - 16 pages

Present: President Mark McClure, Vice President Diane Larsen, Secretary Jack Queen and Member Gail Frazar

Also Present: Building Commissioner Robert Green, Planning Director Keith Behner, Senior Planner Kirk Dakan, Associate Planner Arnold Keene, Associate Planner Liz Avalon, Assistant Planner Kurt Kaiser, Consulting Architect Jim Kelley-Markham and Administrative Assistant Jasie Gan

Absent: Member Ken Markstein

The Minutes of the August 8, 2006 meeting were approved as written.

Staff Reports: The RSF Golf Club item was placed back on the agenda as a conference item.

Consent Calendar: A motion was made, seconded and passed to approve the consent calendar.

CONFERENCE ITEMS:

Lunsford Property I.D. 15.1.5
Workshop Application: Barn (625 sq. ft.), Request to keep 3 horses on 3.4 acres, Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape

Mr. Paul Van Slyke and Mrs. Lunsford attended the meeting.

The Art Jury noted that the Preamble to the Rancho Santa Fe Covenant contains the following statements:

  “WHEREAS, Rancho Santa Fe is unusually attractive and valuable as a high class place of residence because of the rare quality of its landscape, trees and shrubs and the fine architecture and other improvements established by its property owners; and WHEREAS, these property owners are most desirous of preserving, continuing and maintaining this character of community and rare landscape features and of upholding the quality of all future architecture and improvements; and of restricting the use, height and bulk of buildings;…” (Covenant Preamble).

It is the opinion of the Art Jury that a “ …reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness in exterior and physical appearance…” required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant, would not be achieved by the proposal. The proposal is a request for three horses, a Barn with a feed and tack area and fenced pasture areas. These features are located on the property, which slopes down to a seasonal creek that runs through the property.

Some areas have slopes greater than 25%. The area proposed for horse-keeping is further constrained by set-backs and poor soil conditions for the proposed use of horse-keeping.

The Art Jury made the following comments regarding the application:

  1. The Art Jury noted a review of the topographic data provided by the applicant and several site visits by the Art Jury indicate a property with limited or no level areas for structures such as the barn proposed.
  2. Pasture areas are proposed in steep areas of the property that may not be suitable for long periods of horse containment.
  3. The lower areas of the proposed pastures are subject to a seasonal creek and regular drainage flow through the site. These areas may not be suitable for containment of horses during the rainy season. Wet conditions are not compatible with horse-keeping.
  4. The proposed pad graded into the slope does not allow sufficient area outside the proposed barn for associated functions of horse-keeping. The Art Jury is not in favor of this concept and would not allow a larger graded area to accommodate the proposed barn.
  5. The set-backs, as identified by the survey provided by the applicant, on the property further limit areas available for the requested use by the applicant.
  6. As stated by the applicant, poor soil conditions as revealed by a soils engineer, limit the area available for structures on the site.

The Art Jury does not feel horse-keeping is suitable on this property for the reasons stated above.

County of San Diego-  Via de la Valle - Grading, Retaining Walls, Possible Landscape DPW

County Civil Engineer Eric Swanson and Consultant Gene Spineto attended the meeting.

The Art Jury complimented the County staff on the work which had been done to revise the project. The Art Jury requested that the following revisions be made to the project:

  1. The face of the wall shall undulate 3-4 feet in plan view and have a natural appearance to match the existing bluff. Duplicate the existing bluff in the appearance of the artificial bluff. Provide an updated elevation.
  2. Provide complete plan views.
  3. Encase the guard fence uprights in rough sawn timber. Screen the fence.
  4. Return the wall ends significantly to completely hide the proposed brow ditches from the street.

Breitmeyer Property I.D.
Request for Annexation

At their September 12, 2006 meeting, the Art Jury reviewed the proposed annexation of your approximately 2.12 acre parcel located at 15968 Via del Alba.  The Art Jury voted to approve your proposed annexation with the conditions as contained in the attached Proposed Annexation Action. 

Pursuant to the Protective Covenant, both the Art Jury and the Board of Directors must approve annexation applications.  The Board of Directors will conduct the required public hearing and consider your application and the Art Jury’s conditional approval of the requested annexation at their meeting on September 21, 2006 beginning at 9 a.m. at the Association office.  You and/or your representatives are invited to attend this meeting and speak on behalf of your application should you desire to do so.  A copy of the staff report will be available for pick-up at the Association office on Friday, September 15th after 3 p.m.  Please remember that the Association’s approval of your annexation request is subject to the membership’s right to petition for a vote on the application within 30 days of the Board’s tentative approval.  

RSF Property I.D. 2129.161.1
Golf Club Materials

Architect Paul Anderson attended the meeting.

The Art Jury DEFERRED the project noting the following:

  1. “Honey Ledge stone” could be used on a few “signature chimneys. This stone matches the stone already used on the course.
  2. Details of chimney caps shall be provided.
  3. Provide details of the treatment of the remaining chimneys which will not receive stone.
  4. The Art Jury suggested using the “Honey Ledge stone” for planters on the site in lieu of river rock.
  5. Provide revised drawings for Art Jury review and approval.

CONSTRUCTION SITE SIGNS: Board Meeting of September 26, 2006

Domann/Bost Property I.D. 6.2.7
Temporary Construction Sign
Holcombe Design, Inc.           

The Art Jury is recommending APPROVAL of your Temporary Construction Site Sign to the Board of Directors subject to the following conditions:

  1. One (1) sign only per site is allowed.
  2. The size of the sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet.
  3. The sign shall not be installed until an Association construction permit has been issued on the property.
  4. The sign is for site identification only and must be placed at the construction entrance of the subject property.
  5. The sign must be removed prior to requesting a final inspection for the permitted project.
  6. The sign must comply with the Temporary Construction Site Sign Regulation.

The Art Jury recommendation will be forwarded to the Board at the September 21, 2006 meeting.

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Bollert Property I.D. 21.3.7
Stone Sample

The Art Jury reviewed and APPROVED the stone sample on the site during the September 12, 2006 Art Jury meeting subject to the following condition:

  1. Staggered, raked joints shall be used.

DeGoler Property I.D. 44.2.4
Workshop Application: Horse Shelter (320 sq. ft.), Request to keep 2 horses on 3.21 acres

The Art Jury noted that the Preamble to the Rancho Santa Fe Covenant contains the following statements:

  “WHEREAS, Rancho Santa Fe is unusually attractive and valuable as a high class place of residence because of the rare quality of its landscape, trees and shrubs and the fine architecture and other improvements established by its property owners; and WHEREAS, these property owners are most desirous of preserving, continuing and maintaining this character of community and rare landscape features and of upholding the quality of all future architecture and improvements; and of restricting the use, height and bulk of buildings;…” (Covenant Preamble).

It is the opinion of the Art Jury that a “ …reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness in exterior and physical appearance…” required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant, would not be achieved by the proposal. The proposal is a request for two horses, a shelter with a feed and tack area and a 7000 SF fenced corral. These features are located in an area at the bottom of steep slopes at the west corner of the property.

The proposed horse-keeping area is located in an area that has no vehicle access from the applicants’ property, a limited level area and limited pedestrian access. The Art Jury noted the site is constrained by the topography for the use requested by the applicant.

The Art Jury made the following comments regarding the application:

  1. The Art Jury is not in favor of a horse-keeping facility where the only vehicle access is obtained from an adjoining property. The plan does not have any vehicle access on the applicants’ property and relies on an adjoining property to walk horses to for transportation by vehicles.
  2. The topographic data provided by the applicant indicates maintenance and access to the corral area is separated by 30 to 40 feet of steep slope. The Art Jury commented it will be very difficult to traverse the proposed stairs to provide the proper maintenance required to maintain the horse-keeping area in a sanitary condition.
  3. Pedestrian access from the residence to the proposed corral and stable is accessed with approximately 60 steps built into the hillside. These stairs will be the only access for removal of manure and delivery of feed and supplies. The Art Jury does not feel this access is practical or suitable for such a use as horse-keeping.
  4. A narrow path is proposed for access from the corral to a horse-trail located on Calzada del Bosque. This trail requires access through an adjoining property with a possible easement as stated by the applicant. The Art Jury is not in favor of trail access that is dependent on the use of an adjoining property and the property owners’ permission.
  5. The Art Jury noted if the application was submitted as a Preliminary application they would not be able to make findings for an approval and would deny the project.

The Art Jury does not feel horse-keeping is suitable on this property for the reasons stated above.

GJS Trust Property I.D. 5.1.3
Preliminary Application: Residence/Garage (11,050 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (8,569 sq. ft.), Basement Wine Cellar/Mechanical Room (1,156 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (3,616 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Colors & Materials, Pool/Spa

The Art Jury DEFERRED the Preliminary Application with the following comments:

  1. Reduce the height of the freestanding wall on the north side of the “Driveway Courtyard” to no higher than six feet.
    1. Investigate the use of landscaping in place of the taller wall height.
    2. Examine the grading in the area.
  2. Please reduce the height of retaining wall on the south side of the pool to no more than 18 inches.
  3. Please face the pool’s southerly retaining wall with stone.
  4. Submit a RSF Fire Department approved landscape plan. This is a requirement of all preliminary submittals.
  5. Revise the lower Fire Department access lane.
    1. Reduce the overall length.  By extending a fire access lane on the north side of the house, the lower lane could be substantially reduced in length.

Revise the alignment of any access way that is still required to make it more compatible with the existing contours. The current proposal is a long straight line that does not reflect the contours on the land.

Jameson Property I.D. 21.2.4
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (10,150 sq. ft.), Carport (576 sq. ft.), Pool House (750 sq. ft.), Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls Entry Gate/Pilasters

The Art Jury made the following comments:

  1. Please redesign the project. The house is strongly oriented around two axes. The Art Jury recommends that the strict axial layout be relaxed and that elements such as the south wing be redesigned to allow preservation of existing large mature trees. Additionally the proposed drive alignment will result in the elimination of a significant number of mature trees. Please redesign these elements to retain the mature trees.
  2. The proposed axial building arrangement produces a long house (250 ft. +/-) which stretches virtually from setback to setback thereby increasing the apparent bulk of the building. Please reduce the apparent bulk (width) of this building.
  3. The preliminary grading plan was unclear and the Art Jury was not able to completely assess the proposed grading. Submit plans which clearly show existing and proposed grades at 2 feet contour intervals based on recently flown topography in accordance with Rancho Santa Fe submission requirements.
  4. The Art Jury did not find the exterior design aesthetically pleasing or consistent with the following paragraph of the Protective Covenant::

“Type I shall be that distinctive type of architecture which for several decades has been successfully developing in California, deriving its chief inspiration directly or indirectly from Latin types, which developed under similar climatic conditions along the Mediterranean or at points in California, such as Monterery.”  Par. 157 Rancho Santa  Fe Protective Covenant. 

Please revise the exterior architectural appearance.

Logue/Sears Property I.D. 32.12.4
(Russell) Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (17,242 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (2,140 sq. ft.), Basement/Tuck-under (5,736 sq. ft.), Tennis Court, Tennis Pavilion (750 sq. ft.), Detached Garage (2,461 sq. ft.), Guest Suite (1,651 sq. ft.), Day Spa (1,663 sq. ft.), Pool/Spa, Retaining Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters

 The Art Jury made the following comments:

  1. The Art Jury are in favor of the architectural style of the building and encourages you to use a “George Washington Smith” type of architectural design for any new proposal. The Art Jury are not however in favor of the bulk, length and prominence of the building. The building grouping is 300’ + long and has vertical, two-story and single story building elements placed at the edge of slope. This results in a prominent structure. Please significantly reduce the bulk and prominence of the building.
  2. Additionally, regarding building massing, the project proposes a 160 ft+/- long second story. This element has a largely unbroken, vertical two story façade along the entire west two-story elevation. The ridgeline of this element varies little and has a visually monotonous appearance. These elements all serve to emphasize the visual bulk of the building. This design is not aesthetically acceptable to the Art Jury.
  3. Buildings are shown on the site plan located in the setback or over the property line. A lot line adjustment application must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
  4. Please review future submissions with the RSF Fire Department and provide a stamped plan with any future submissions. Incorporate any Fire Department required revisions into the plans prior to submission.
  5. The tennis court is proposed in a sloping area in a prominent location. The tennis court is not acceptable to the Art Jury in this location due to its prominence and the amount of proposed grading. An alternate site for the tennis court and recreation building complex could be at the north end of the building pad pending further review by the Art Jury.
  6. Retain the remaining mature trees.
  7. Muted earth–tones shall be used for the building color.

Parts of the project will be very prominent from Linea del Cielo. Also, there will be long distance views from large portions of the easterly end of the Covenant.

Madura Property I.D. 33.9.1
Workshop Application: Residence/Garage (5,706 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (360 sq. ft.), Detached Garage (610 sq. ft.)

The Art Jury made the following comments:

  1. The building is not aesthetically acceptable to the Art Jury. Some of the building elevations are plain and monotonous with little articulation (north) and the roof design is visually awkward and does not relate to the building elevations.
  2. The plans are not adequate to present a clear indication of the finished design.
  3. Provide an as-built topography plan.
  4. Review the proposed plan with the RSF Fire Department and revise the plan accordingly prior to submission. It is likely that Fire Department access will be required to the stable at the rear of the property. This will not be acceptable aesthetically to the Art Jury because of the limited room for landscaping (see prior correspondence).
  5. Submit a further Workshop Application after revising the project.

Meza Property I.D. 9.8.4
Workshop Application: Addition (924 sq. ft.), As-Built Grading, Landscape           

The Art Jury reviewed the plans and as-built grading in the field and made the following comments:

The Art Jury considers that portions of the as-built slope are steep and unnatural in appearance, particularly the north east corner.

The Art Jury suggested two alternatives as follows:

  1. Combine the two proposed rooms at the south end of the building and contour grade the north east corner of the graded slope in a natural fashion.
  2. Keep the proposed layout of the room additions but recess the northerly bedroom into the grade 4 feet and contour grade the north east corner of the graded slope in a natural fashion.

Oliphant Property I.D. D.20
Final Application: Roof Revision

The Art Jury reviewed the as-built parapet in the field.  The Art Jury denied the as-built parapet. The Art Jury noted that the roof shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plan and the parapet shall be removed.

The Art Jury noted that the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant contains the following paragraph: 

“WHEREAS, Rancho Santa Fe is unusually attractive and valuable as a high class place of residence because of the rare quality of its landscape, trees and shrubs and the fine architecture and other improvements established by its property owners; and WHEREAS, these property owners are most desirous of preserving, continuing and maintaining this character of community and rare landscape features and of upholding the quality of all future architecture and improvements; and of restricting the use, height and bulk of buildings;…” (Covenant Preamble).

Additionally, Paragraph 46 of the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant requires projects “to insure a uniform and reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness.”  

It is the opinion of the Art Jury that a “…reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness in exterior and physical appearance….” required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant is derived from well proportioned building exteriors which are aesthetically pleasing. In the opinion of the Art Jury it is more aesthetically pleasing to not terminate the tile roof in a parapet. The approved design would duplicate the design of the original historic building and preserve the front of the building as you proposed in the original application.

Modification of the exterior of a building without obtaining the necessary Association permit is in violation of the Rancho Santa Fe Protective Covenant.

While we do not anticipate any difficulty in resolving this matter, the Association’s adopted regulations require that we inform you that the Protective Covenant, Association Bylaws, and State law provide for both legal and administrative remedies for Covenant violations. If you take no action to remedy the Covenant violation, non-compliance may lead to suspension of Association privileges (e.g. voting, golf, tennis membership, building permits, inspections and approvals, etc.), the recordation of a lien against your property, and other charges. The Association also reserves the right to seek a court order to require you to return the unapproved work to its prior condition.”

“Pursuant to Paragraphs 64-68 of the Protective Covenant, appeal rights are available to you.  In order to initiate an appeal, a letter requesting same must be received within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. Should you choose to appeal; mediation will be scheduled in accordance with Paragraphs 64-68 of the Protective Covenant. If you choose to have an attorney present at the mediation, please notify the Association not less than five working days before the mediation is held.”

Popescu Property I.D. J.2.12
Final Application: Landscape Revision, Entry Gate/Pilasters

The Art Jury DEFERRED the revised Driveway Entry Gate design for staff review and approval with the following condition:

  1. Submit to staff a detailed gate design with a fully dimensioned plan including colors.

The Art Jury DENIED the Final Application for a revised Driveway Gate location with the following comments:

The Art Jury noted that the Preamble to the Rancho Santa Fe Covenant contains the following statements:

  “WHEREAS, Rancho Santa Fe is unusually attractive and valuable as a high class place of residence because of the rare quality of its landscape, trees and shrubs and the fine architecture and other improvements established by its property owners; and WHEREAS, these property owners are most desirous of preserving, continuing and maintaining this character of community and rare landscape features and of upholding the quality of all future architecture and improvements; and of restricting the use, height and bulk of buildings;…” (Covenant Preamble).

It is the opinion of the Art Jury that a “ …reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness in exterior and physical appearance…” required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant, would not be achieved by the proposal. The proposed new location for the driveway gate, at the south entry driveway, would be 24 feet from the edge of the road. The approved location from 1998 is 38 feet from the edge of pavement. The Art Jury noted the current guidelines suggest 50 feet from the street for driveway gate locations.

The revised location for the gate will be prominent from the street due to the close proximity. The revised location also will make the gate prominent because the width of the gate will face the street as opposed to being further back where the driveway has a curve away from the street.

The Art Jury noted that the Protective Covenant objective of “maintaining this character of community and rare landscape features.” Was in part achieved by maintaining predominantly rural streetscape comprising primarily of landscaping (trees and shrubs) as opposed to architectural features. The Art Jury also noted that the proposed location of the gate was visually prominent and would interrupt what is a predominantly landscaped street. In the opinion of the Art Jury, the visual prominence of such a manmade feature is not consistent with the Protective Covenant objective of “maintaining this character of community and rare landscape features.” Or Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant, which requires a “…reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness in exterior and physical appearance…”

For the above reasons the Art Jury could not make the finding required by Paragraph 46 of the Protective Covenant that the proposal would maintain a  “… reasonably high standard of artistic result and attractiveness in exterior and physical appearance….”

“Pursuant to Paragraphs 64-68 of the Protective Covenant, appeal rights are available to you.  In order to initiate an appeal, a letter requesting same must be received within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. Should you choose to appeal; mediation will be scheduled in accordance with Paragraphs 64-68 of the Protective Covenant. If you choose to have an attorney present at the mediation, please notify the Association not less than five working days before the mediation is held.”

Queen Property I.D. 23.1.1
Final Application: Guesthouse (1,477 sq. ft.), Landscape, Colors & Materials           

Jack Queen abstained.

The Art Jury APPROVED the Final Application subject to the following condition:

  1. Landscaping is required to screen the project from off-site. If for any reason the final, approved landscape installation does not meet this objective, the Association may require additional plantings, pursuant to Regulatory Code Section 42.0302. Any existing vegetation not shown and approved on the plans as “to be removed” shall be considered “Critical View” landscaping as defined in that regulation. Any trees or landscaping damaged or destroyed during construction or transplanting shall be replaced in-kind with new materials prior to Final Inspection of the landscaping.

Wieck Property I.D. 36.4.2
Preliminary Application: Guesthouse (756 sq. ft.)

The Art Jury APPROVED the Preliminary Application subject to the following conditions:

  1. With your Final Application, please submit a RSF Fire Department approved landscape plan. The plan shall clearly state that the existing large deodar cedar be retained. If the Fire Department does not approve of the cedar being retained, or if it requires excessive pruning that would ruin its form, the guesthouse shall be relocated.
  2. Landscaping is required to screen the project from off-site. If for any reason the final, approved landscape installation does not meet this objective, the Association may require additional plantings, pursuant to Regulatory Code Section 42.0302. Any existing vegetation not shown and approved on the plans as “to be removed” shall be considered “Critical View” landscaping as defined in that regulation. Any trees or landscaping damaged or destroyed during construction or transplanting shall be replaced in-kind with new materials prior to Final Inspection of the landscaping.

CONSENT 1 AGENDA ITEMS:

Agee Property I.D. 37.3.6
Preliminary Application: Residence/Garage (11,140 sq. ft.), Attached Covered Areas (1,066 sq. ft.), Guesthouse (1,155 sq. ft.), Barn (1,207 sq. ft.), Request to keep 3 horses on 3.02 acres, Grading, Retaining Walls, Fencing & Walls, Entry Gate/Pilasters, Landscape, Pool/Spa, Propane Tank                       

cont. on Page 2

 
  
Home | Members | History | Location | Association | Covenant | Art Jury | Clubs | Services | Numbers | Contact Us | Site Map | Links
© Rancho Santa Fe Association
PO Box A, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Email: info@rsfassociation.org